Kolkata Court February 1955 Judgments
Buridehing Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Dominion of India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal360,59CWN667
P.N. Mookerjee, J.1. A short point arises for decision in the present appeal. It relates to the validity of the notice under Section 80, Civil P. C.2. The relevant facts He within a short compass:3. In October, 1942, the plaintiff company-booked two consignments of tea valued respectively at Rs. 7235/- and Rs. 3509/- at Gangasagar Railway Station of the B. and A. Railway, administered by the Central Government, ior carriage and delivery to the plaintiff's Calcutta Agents Messrs. S.C. Dutt and Co., at the Tea Ware House T.T. Shed, Kidderpore.4. The second consignment was duly delivered to the plaintiif's brokers, Messrs. W.S. Creswell and Co., although the plaintiff company did not. actually get it due to some mixing up with other teas at the Port Commissioners' Godowns, but the first consignment got lost in transit on the railway. The plaintiff company also appears to have refused the offer of rateable payment, made to them, in respect of the second consignment, under the Port Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Janab Mukhtar Ahmed and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal606,60CWN87
K.C. Das Gupta, J.1. In this application the Union of India seeks this Court's intervention, in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with an order passed by the collector, 24-Parganas refusing the prayer of this applicant for appointment of a Receiver of the two properties -- premises No. 48 Metcalfe Street, Calcutta and a house known as Alexandra Court hearing premises No. 60/l Chowringhee Road, Calcutta. It was stated in the application for appointment of a Receiver that Hafiz Shamshed Ahmed was liable for an amount of Rs. 11,83,629-3-0 on account of assessment of income tax made under the Income Tax Act and penalties imposed on him, that though a number of certificate cases had been started against him for recovery of this amount no recovery had been made, that if the properties were sold in certificate proceedings they were not likely to fetch adequate prices and that in these circumstances it was just and convenient that a Recei...
Tag this Judgment!Bimal Chand Bothra Vs. the Chairman Jiaganj-azimganj Municipality and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal541
Chakravartti, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order of Sinha, J., dated 14-12-1953, by which the learned Judge discharged a Rule obtained by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment of the learned Judge covers a fairly large variety of points, but Mr. Sen Gupta, who has appeared before us on behalf of the appellant, elected to press only one of them.2. In view of the ground upon which we propose to dispose of the appeal, it is not necessary to set out the facts at any great length. Suffice it to say that on 8-7-1952, a preliminary electoral roll in respect of the Jiaganj-Azimganj Municipality was published by file relevant registering authority under Section 21, Bengal Municipal Act. The final electoral roll was thereafter published on the 6th September following. It appears that on 20-9-1952, one Kamalakanta Bhattacnarjee preferred an appeal before the District Magistrate under Section 529A, Bengal Municipal Act, whereby he prayed for the exclusio...
Tag this Judgment!Sm. Sushama Roy Vs. Atul Krishna Roy and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-22-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal624,59CWN779
Das Gupta, J. 1. This appeal raises the difficult question whether in a case where the shebaits of a deity have precluded themselves by their conduct from bringing a suit to protect the interests of the deity, a person interested in the proper sheba puja of the deity may institute a suit on behalf of the deity even though not appointed as next friend of the deity by the Court. 2. A private debottar was created by Bhaga-bati Dassi for the deity Sree Sree Iswar Jugal Kishore. Jiu by a deed of dedication. By the died the lady constituted herself the first shebait and provided that after her death Bejoy Lal Roy would be the shebait; and on Bejoy's death, his eldest son would be the shebait and in this way the eldest of each successive shebait would become shebait. After the death of Bejoy disputes arose between his sons, Atul Krishna and Monmatha, over the claim, to shebaiti and Monmatha instituted a suit against Atul Krishna claiming joint shebaitship with Amalya and for framing a scheme ...
Tag this Judgment!Suresh Chandra Ganguly Vs. J.W. Orr
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal534,59CWN633
Chakravartti, C.J. 1. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent which, in my opinion, must succeed, although I may say that that conclusion is not one which I very much like. 2. The appellant was an Inspector of Central Excise and his services were terminated by two months' notice, given on 30-11-1951. The step of terminating the services of the appellant is claimed to have been taken under Rule 5(a) of the Central Services (Temporary Services) Rules. The respondent to the application before the Court below was one Mr. J.W. Orr who was then the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, and who made the order by which the appellant's services were terminated. It appears, however, that even before the application came up for final hearing, the respondent was transferred from Calcutta ana ceased to be the Collector of Central Excise at this station. In fact, he was transferred on 5-7-1952. In spite of that, however, an affidavit was affirmed by him on 13-8-1952, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Shyam Sundar Rakshit Vs. Satchidananda Rakshit and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal351
P.N. Mookerjee, J. 1. This second miscellaneous appeal and the alternative application arise out of a proceeding for punishing breach of an injunction, issued under Order 39 Rule 1, Civil P. C. The proceeding was initiated by an application which was headed as one under Order 39 Rule 2(3) of the Code but which should have been properly described as one under Order 39 Rule 1(2) as applying to this part of the country. This sub-rule was added by this Court in the exercise of its rule-making powers under the Code to remove doubts as to the mofussil courts' power to take action under Order 3 in case of breach of injunction, issued under the First rule of that Order. 2. There can be no doubt that the second miscellaneous appeal is incompetent in law. The code provides for one appeal in such a case and there is no provision for a further appeal to this Court from an appellate order of the District Court. The appeal must, therefore, fail on this preliminary ground and it is dismissed without ...
Tag this Judgment!Raman Mondal Vs. Gobinda Mondal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal510
Renupada Mukherjee, J. 1. The appellant before me was defendant in the trial court. The plaintiffs-respondents instituted a suit against him for a declaration that the plaintiffs have got a right to irrigate some agricultural plots of theirs described in schedule Kha of the plaint from the water of a tank described in Schedule Ka of the plaint. It is an admitted fact that this tank was at one time the khas property of the landlords who were pro forma defendants 2 and 3 in the trial court and that about tour years before the institution of the present suit this tank was settled by the pro forma defendants with appellant Hainan Mondal. The plaintiffs claimed a right of irrigating their lands with the water of this tank by virtue of a prescriptive right ok easement as also by user of the water of the tank from time immemorial from which a case of lost grant might be inferred. The case of the plaintiffs further was that the defendant was filling up the tank by denying the plaintiffs' right...
Tag this Judgment!Murli Tahilram Vs. T. Asoomal and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal423,59CWN701
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J. 1. This is a race between the State and the private citizen for Law's rewards. It is an application by the State of West Bengal claiming priority over a private creditor in respect of certain funds in the hands of a Receiver and by specific order' of Court ear-marked for payment to the creditor who is the decree-holder. 2. The State is a stranger to the suit. The suit was brought by Murli Tahilram against the firm of T. Assomal and Co. On 10-9-1953 a decree was passed in this suit against the defendant for the sum of Rs. 2860-2-4 with interest at six per cent, per annum and costs. Prior to that date, on 4-8-1953 an order had been made in that suit appointing the Official Receiver of Calcutta the Receiver of the business of the defendant firm including all the goods, stock-in-trade, furniture and fittings at A 7/10, New Market, Calcutta. In execution of the decree a further order was made on 19-1-1954 in this suit directing the Official Receiver to sell the said g...
Tag this Judgment!N.R. Ghosh Vs. the State
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1955
Reported in: AIR1955Cal540,1955CriLJ1353,59CWN509
Guha Ray, J. 1. This is a Rule for quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner N. R. Ghosh in the court of a Magistrate at Darjeeling. It appears that the present petitioner along with another, namely, one S.K. Bose had been put oil trial in the court of the Special Judge at Alipore under Section 120B read with Section 409, I. F. C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act (Act 2 of 1947) and also under Section 409, Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution' case is that between September and November, 1948, 'S.K. Bose who was the S. D. O., M. E. S., Darjeeling and the petitioner who was a clerk in charge of the M. E, S. office there misappropriated a large amount of money about Rs. 15,000/- which represented the sale proceeds of bamboos and thatches from the air-field at Hashimara. At the trial S.K. Bose was convicted but the petitioner was acquitted. On appeal by S.K. Bose from his conviction a Bench of this Court held that Section 4(1), West Bengal Criminal Law Amendmen...
Tag this Judgment!Soorajmall Nagarmall Vs. Indian National Drug Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1955
Reported in: AIR1956Cal187,59CWN1023
ORDERR.P. Mookerjee, J.1. This Rule was obtained by the landlord against an order passed by the Additional Rent Controller on an application filed by the tenant under Section 38, West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950. The Additional Rent Controller has directed,'..... ;that the leaky roof must be repaired. Damaged iron rafters must be replaced by good ones and the minor portions of the roof which are likely to collapse should be replaced by way of renewal. Thus, in conclusion I think that the landlord is boundl to make repairs to items Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the inspector's report marked Ex I and these items will come within the purview of Section 38 (3) of the Act,' The principal argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner in support of the Rule is that under Section 38, Sub-sections (1) and (2) only 'repairs' can be directed to be made by the Rent Controller. No reconstruction or fresh construction can be directed to be put up. Further, the directi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »